State v. Blanton, 110 N.E.3d 1

Background

Denny W. Blanton Jr., an 18‑year‑old inmate at Adams County Jail, was tried by jury and convicted of felonious assault (R.C. 2903.11(A)(1)), kidnapping (R.C. 2905.01(B)(2)), and misdemeanor assault; one kidnapping count was dismissed and another kidnapping charge resulted in acquittal on a different time frame.
Incident arose from organized jail “wrestling/fighting” that Blanton allegedly instigated; surveillance video, inmate testimony, victim Gary Lunsford, and hospital photos/ER testimony were admitted at trial.
Key factual claims: Blanton encouraged and restarted matches, other inmates struck Lunsford (including a purported “sucker punch”), Lunsford was later beaten while on the floor and sustained facial injuries and was treated at the hospital.
Defense raised (1) insufficiency of evidence, (2) request for missing jail surveillance footage (motion to dismiss after some video had been overwritten), (3) requests for lesser‑included instructions and challenges to complicity instruction, and (4) confrontation/limits on cross‑examination about destroyed footage; also raised ineffective assistance and sentencing claims.
Trial court denied the motion to dismiss for failure to preserve video (no bad faith/materiality shown), allowed limited cross‑examination, refused a lesser‑included instruction for simple assault, and imposed consecutive six‑year terms (plus a concurrent misdemeanor term) to be served consecutively to prior sentences. Appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Blanton)	Held
Sufficiency — felonious assault: whether evidence proves Blanton knowingly caused serious physical harm	Video + inmate & medical testimony show Blanton instigated fights and actively struck Lunsford, producing serious injury	Blanton argued delay between initial punch by another inmate and his involvement, and contested causation/collective liability	Affirmed: viewed in prosecution's favor, evidence supported that Blanton set events in motion and participated; foreseeability/collective contribution satisfied causation and mens rea
Sufficiency — kidnapping (R.C. 2905.01(B)(2)): whether an inmate can be "restrained" while incarcerated	State: threats/commands prevented Lunsford from seeking help or showing injuries, creating substantial risk of serious physical harm	Blanton: logical impossibility — inmate already confined by jail; conduct fits coercion statute (lesser) rather than kidnapping	Affirmed: inmates retain certain liberties; coercion and kidnapping are reconcilable here because conduct also created substantial risk of physical harm; jury reasonably found restraint of liberty and risk
Lesser‑included instruction (simple assault vs felonious assault)	N/A (State opposed instruction)	Blanton: trial court should have instructed jury on simple assault as lesser included	Affirmed: although assault can be lesser‑included, courts need evidentiary support to give instruction; judge did not abuse discretion because record did not support acquittal on felonious assault and conviction solely on lesser offense
Complicity instruction completeness	State argued evidence supported complicity theory	Blanton: instruction was incomplete/misleading (failed to define aiding/abetting and required mental state)	Affirmed: instruction, read as whole, did not create plain error; evidence supported both principal and complicitor theories; omission not prejudicial
Motion to dismiss for failure to preserve video; defendant absent at hearing	Blanton: missing footage was materially exculpatory and court erred by deciding hearing in his absence without testimony	State: footage was overwritten per routine retention policy; defendant failed to show materiality or bad faith	Affirmed: defendant bore burden to show materiality (no specific pretrial request prior to routine erasure); argument speculative; absence of Blanton at pretrial hearing not reversible where counsel protected interests
Cross‑examination limits re: investigator's failure to preserve video (Confrontation)	Blanton: trial court improperly curtailed cross‑examination, preventing jury from assessing investigator motive and completeness of video evidence	State: questioning had been asked/answered and further inquiry risked legal conclusions/irrelevance; court reasonably limited repetitive/confusing questioning	Affirmed: no Confrontation Clause violation; defense had opportunity to raise doubts in opening/other cross; further questioning was within court’s broad discretion and could have confused jury given prior legal rulings on materiality/bad faith
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Blanton: counsel erred re: presence at motion hearing, failure to press impossibility/coercion arguments, not objecting to complicity instruction	State: challenged points were either strategic or meritless; no prejudice shown	Affirmed: counsel’s choices were reasonable strategy and failing to raise legally futile arguments does not show deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland
Consecutive sentencing / vindictive punishment for insisting on trial	Blanton: judge's sentencing remarks and prior participation in plea negotiations show punishment for refusing plea/trial	State: court made statutory findings (R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)) and cited public‑protection/seriousness/history reasons for consecutive terms	Affirmed: record contained required findings for consecutive sentences; comments did not show vindictiveness or unlawful consideration of trial exercise

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (establishes the standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution's duty to disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
Bagley v. United States, 473 U.S. 667 (definition of "reasonable probability" for materiality under Brady)
Youngblood v. Arizona, 488 U.S. 51 (lost/destroyed evidence rule; bad faith required for due process violation)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (prisoners retain certain constitutional rights and state must provide medical care)
Thompkins v. Ohio, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (standard on review of sufficiency/weight of evidence in Ohio)